T
theidler
Guest
What’s your opinion on Ven. Mary Agreda and her writings? I have heard she was downright heretical by some, and the opposite by others…does anyone know what the Church has said about her?
- Status
L
LittleHannah
Guest
Her writings are approved by the Church. I have her book ‘’ The Divine Life of the Blessed Virgin’’. Its a wonderful book. 
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
I have a copy of her THE DIVINE LIFE OF THE MOST HOLY VIRGIN,
published by TAN.
I love Mary (mother of God), but I am surprised and shocked and in disbelief at some of the claims that the Venerable Mary Agreda makes about the blessed virgin
(that she had the use of reason in her mother’s womb since coneption – a zygote had
the use of reason??? I sincerely and respectfully doubt that. And that on the night of the Last Supper, an angel brought her “Holy Communion.”) These things are sweet, reverent and well intentioned, but I really cannot accept these claims. They are private revelations and the church does NOT guarantee their ACCURACY.
Nonetheless, by all accounts she was a wonderful and holy woman, and we should respect and venerate her for that.
published by TAN.
I love Mary (mother of God), but I am surprised and shocked and in disbelief at some of the claims that the Venerable Mary Agreda makes about the blessed virgin
(that she had the use of reason in her mother’s womb since coneption – a zygote had
the use of reason??? I sincerely and respectfully doubt that. And that on the night of the Last Supper, an angel brought her “Holy Communion.”) These things are sweet, reverent and well intentioned, but I really cannot accept these claims. They are private revelations and the church does NOT guarantee their ACCURACY.
Nonetheless, by all accounts she was a wonderful and holy woman, and we should respect and venerate her for that.
J
JM3
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
When reading the writings of many mystics, one has to remember that the person may not understand what he or she is seeing or hearing. Therefore, he can write it incorrectly or interpret it incorrectly.
A person may be a mystic, because he or she is holy. That does not make him a theologian or a genius. Look at the number of mystical works in our Catholic history and then look at how many of those writers have been named “Teachers” of the faith. There are very few Doctors, compared to the number of writings. The Church often remains silent on these writings, unless there is something contrary to the faith in them. If it’s just some pious imagery or language, that in and of itself is not contrary to the faith or morals.
Just look at Teresa of Avila’s castles. The Church has never said that there are such things as heavenly castles or interior castles. It’s allegory, just like Don Quixote is allegory. However, the theology of St. Teresa is doctrinal development as Bl. John Henry Newman calls it.
When reading these things, keep in mind that most of these writers have never been formally acknowledged as teachers, doctors or spiritual masters. This takes nothing away from the person. It’s that the writing doesn’t work for whatever reason. Even some of the writings of Aquinas did not work and have been left on the shelf. That takes nothing away from what has worked. It certainly takes nothing away from his holiness. He was not canonized because he wrote the Summa. He was canonized because he was a humble, obedient, and faithful friar.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A person may be a mystic, because he or she is holy. That does not make him a theologian or a genius. Look at the number of mystical works in our Catholic history and then look at how many of those writers have been named “Teachers” of the faith. There are very few Doctors, compared to the number of writings. The Church often remains silent on these writings, unless there is something contrary to the faith in them. If it’s just some pious imagery or language, that in and of itself is not contrary to the faith or morals.
Just look at Teresa of Avila’s castles. The Church has never said that there are such things as heavenly castles or interior castles. It’s allegory, just like Don Quixote is allegory. However, the theology of St. Teresa is doctrinal development as Bl. John Henry Newman calls it.
When reading these things, keep in mind that most of these writers have never been formally acknowledged as teachers, doctors or spiritual masters. This takes nothing away from the person. It’s that the writing doesn’t work for whatever reason. Even some of the writings of Aquinas did not work and have been left on the shelf. That takes nothing away from what has worked. It certainly takes nothing away from his holiness. He was not canonized because he wrote the Summa. He was canonized because he was a humble, obedient, and faithful friar.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Hi, and thanks for the above comments about mystics and “teachers.”
Very enlightening.
To the other kind poster,
thanks for the link to the photos of Mary Agreda in her incorrupt state.
That is very impressive, and I had seen it first only a few days ago quite by coincidence (I was looking for the photos of incorrupt St. Bernadette and came across Ven. Mary Agreda).
Incorruption, however, guarantees that she was holy and very godly,
but not that she was always ACCURATE. (NOBODY is, so don’t take offense).
Some of the things she says in that (condensed) book are quite shocking/surprising.
When I first read some of the statements, I found myself saying,
OH GET REAL!!! Of course, I no longer feel THAT strongly shocked,
but still, some of the claims do seem anachronistic and more like pious fantasies.
Very enlightening.
To the other kind poster,
thanks for the link to the photos of Mary Agreda in her incorrupt state.
That is very impressive, and I had seen it first only a few days ago quite by coincidence (I was looking for the photos of incorrupt St. Bernadette and came across Ven. Mary Agreda).
Incorruption, however, guarantees that she was holy and very godly,
but not that she was always ACCURATE. (NOBODY is, so don’t take offense).
Some of the things she says in that (condensed) book are quite shocking/surprising.
When I first read some of the statements, I found myself saying,
OH GET REAL!!! Of course, I no longer feel THAT strongly shocked,
but still, some of the claims do seem anachronistic and more like pious fantasies.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
And thanks again for the link to the Incorruptibles.
Another who was incorrupt, from 220 A.D. onward, for 1300 years or more,
was SAINT IRENAEUS of Lyons, the great early church bishop who wrote
AGAINST THE HERESIES.
His body, during the Reformation, was seized by a Calvinist mob
and desecrated, being thrown into the river. How awful.
Another who was incorrupt, from 220 A.D. onward, for 1300 years or more,
was SAINT IRENAEUS of Lyons, the great early church bishop who wrote
AGAINST THE HERESIES.
His body, during the Reformation, was seized by a Calvinist mob
and desecrated, being thrown into the river. How awful.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Incorruption doesn’t necessarily guarantee holiness. There are some Hindu and Buddhist incorruptibles as well.
J
JReducation
Guest
As Fr. Vincent tried to explain the other day on AAA. There are many saved people outside the Church. Therefore, there can be many holy Hindus and Buddhists.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Monica4316
Guest
as others have said, even true private revelation is partly interpreted by the person receiving it… however, I don’t see why those two points could not have been true; I mean - how do we know that reason comes from the brain and not the soul? the zygote would already have a soul. We simply don’t know these things. This is assuming this is accurate, which we don’t know.
As for the Angel bringing Our Lady Holy Communion, I don’t think that’s far- fetched at all, after all this happened with some of the Saints, surely if it happened to them it could happen to Our Blessed Mother
God bless
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
I am not convinced that Mary wasn’t at the Last Supper. People tend to forget the DaVinci painting isn’t a photograph. The accounts of the Last Supper relate vital spiritual teachings and truths, not a list of attendees. I was always taught that the Gospel witers included what was unique and unusual, and in that culture family members at a Passover meal would have been taken for granted. If this is so, there would have been no need for an angel to allegedly have brought Communion to Mary, which in any case seems much more like a pious legend.as others have said, even true private revelation is partly interpreted by the person receiving it… however, I don’t see why those two points could not have been true; I mean - how do we know that reason comes from the brain and not the soul? the zygote would already have a soul. We simply don’t know these things. This is assuming this is accurate, which we don’t know.
As for the Angel bringing Our Lady Holy Communion, I don’t think that’s far- fetched at all, after all this happened with some of the Saints, surely if it happened to them it could happen to Our Blessed Mother
God bless
L
Leon_Bloy
Guest
Venerable Father Solanus Casey was a huge fan of her book, but he kind of got in trouble once for promoting it to lay people.
A
Albino_Luciani
Guest
The book in question is wonderful, easy to understand, and will increase your love of all things Catholic!!!
- Status